DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 04/21/2026. Claims 2-6, 14-17, and 26 had been previously cancelled. Claims 1, 13, and 25 have been amended. Claims 1, 7-13, 18-25, and 27-30 remain pending. Claims 1, 13, and 25 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7-13, 18-25, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2023/0094172, hereinafter “Han”) in view of CN110471639A (a reference included in the IDS filed on 09/17/2024, which was also filed along with an indicated English-language equivalent which will be used for mapping purposes, US Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0147228, hereinafter “Yi”).
As to independent claim 1, Han shows a method implemented by a communication system [¶¶ 02 & 06], wherein the method comprises:
establishing, by a first electronic device of the communication system, a multi-screen collaboration connection to a second electronic device of the communication system [e.g. establishing, by a first electronic device of the communication system, a multi-screen collaboration connection to a second electronic device of the communication system (¶¶ 06 & 122)];
displaying, by the first electronic device, a first interface of a first application installed on the first electronic device, wherein the first interface comprises a first option [e.g. displaying, by the first electronic device, a first interface of a first application installed on the first electronic device, wherein the first interface comprises a first/“Sharing” option (fig. 1A)];
receiving, by the first electronic device, a first operation performed by a user on the first option [e.g. receiving, by the first electronic device, a first operation performed by a user on the first/“Sharing” option (fig. 1A; ¶ 67)];
displaying, by the first electronic device in response to the first operation, a first menu comprising a first icon of a second application installed on the second electronic device [e.g. displaying, by the first electronic device in response to the first operation, a first menu comprising a first icon of a second application installed on the second electronic device (figs. 5B & 9A-9B; ¶¶ 09 & 116-121)];
receiving, by the first electronic device, a second operation performed by the user on the first icon [e.g. selecting one of the application icons (figs. 5B & 9A-9B; ¶¶ 09 & 116-121)];
sending, by the first electronic device, to the second electronic device, and in response to the second operation, an application sharing request; enabling, by the second electronic device in response to the application sharing request, the second application [e.g. enabling access to the selected application after it was selected as the sharing destination (figs. 5B & 9A-9B; ¶¶ 09 & 116-121)];
displaying a second interface {…} [Han shows many ways of displaying a second interface that is related to the second electronic device/application (Han: figs. 7B & 11; ¶¶ 09 & 11-12)]
As indicated above, Han shows many “second interface” alternatives. In lieu of simply pointing to the considerable breadth of the terms “a window of the second electronic device” and/or “a third interface of the second application” as currently recited and/or the spectrum of possible mappings their respective broadest reasonable interpretations would cover, it is potentially conceded that Han does not appear to explicitly recite a “a second interface comprising a window of the second electronic device, wherein the window comprises a third interface of the second application” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Yi shows:
displaying a second interface comprising a window of the second electronic device [e.g. displaying a virtual screen 701 (Yi: figs. 7-8B, 10A, 11A-12B, &14A-14E; ¶¶ 192-195 & 237) and/or window frames associated with a multi-window button 7016 (Yi: figs. 11A-13) of a different electronic device (Yi: fig. 1)],
wherein the window comprises a third interface of the second application running on the second electronic device [e.g. the window comprises a third interface of the second application (Yi: figs. 11A-13; ¶¶ 276 & 284)],
and wherein the window occupies only a part of an area of the display [The virtual screen 701 (Yi: figs. 7-8B, 10A, 11A-12B, &14A-14E; ¶¶ 192-195 & 237) and/or window frames associated with a multi-window button 7016 (Yi: figs. 11A-13) occupy only a part of an area of the display.]; and
after displaying the second interface comprising the window: receiving, by the first electronic device, a third operation performed by the user on a second option displayed in the second interface; and minimizing, in response to the third operation, the window of the second electronic device [“The minimization control 7021 may be configured to minimize the virtual screen 701 of the electronic device. The large-screen device minimizes the virtual screen 701 of the electronic device in response to a click or touch operation on the minimization control 7021. A minimized virtual screen 701 may be, for example, shown in FIG. 10A, and only an indicator 7012 indicating that a virtual screen of an electronic device is projected onto a large-screen device, a search button 7013, a quick launch bar 7014, a desktop activity button 7015, and a multi-window button 7016 are retained. Alternatively, the minimized virtual screen 701 may be, for example, as shown in FIG. 10B, and only a desktop activity button 7015 is retained.” (Yi: ¶ 262)
“In FIG. 11A, FIG. 11B, and FIG. 11C, a name bar of each application on the interface may include a hidden button 1102 and a minimization button 1101. The hidden button 1102 may be configured to hide the interface of the application, and the minimization button 1101 may be configured to minimize the interface of the application and display the interface at a preset location, for example, a lower right corner. {…}” (¶ 282) | See also Yi: ¶¶ 259, 284, & 287.].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Han and Yi before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Yi’s window displaying techniques into Han. The rationale for doing so would have been that Han had already explicitly indicated a desire of obtaining an end result wherein “the user may view, by using the first electronic device, an application that is in another electronic device and related to the target data without opening the another electronic device” (Han: ¶ 09) “and the first application in the second electronic device can be invoked to send the target data to the first account. In this way, a quantity of times of operations performed by the user can be reduced, and efficiency of processing the foregoing target data can be improved.” (Han: ¶ 12). Moreover, Yi confirms that incorporating its techniques into Han “helps a user operate applications on the electronic device and the large-screen device at the same time, and improves user experience” (Yi: ¶ 243). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Han and Yi (hereinafter, the “Han-Yi” combination) in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 1.
As to dependent claim 7, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein the first menu further comprises a second icon of a third application and a first identifier, wherein the third application is installed on the first electronic device, and wherein the first identifier indicates that the second application is installed on the second electronic device [e.g. the first menu further comprises a second icon of a third application and a first identifier, wherein the third application is installed on the first electronic device, and wherein the first identifier indicates that the second application is installed on the second electronic device (Han: figs. 5B & 9A; ¶¶ 120-121 & 146-147)].
As to dependent claim 8, Han-Yi further shows:
determining the second application in the first menu based on a task type corresponding to the first option [e.g. the second application in the first menu is determined based on a task type corresponding to the first option (Han: ¶¶ 10 & 116)].
As to dependent claim 9, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein before receiving the first operation, the method further comprises receiving, by the first electronic device from the second electronic device, first application information comprising package information of the second application [e.g. before receiving the first operation, first application information comprising package information of the second application is received by the first electronic device from the second electronic device (Han: ¶¶ 105-106, 165, & 180)].
As to dependent claim 10, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein after receiving the first application information, the method further comprises performing, by the first electronic device based on the first application information, a simulation to obtain the second application [e.g. after receiving the first application information, a “simulation” to obtain the second application is performed by the first electronic device based on the first application information (Han: figs. 5B & 9A-9B; ¶¶ 09, 105-110, 116-121, & 180). It is noted that the metes and bounds of the “a simulation” limitation as currently recited are significantly vague/broad, and cover a wide range of possibilities, including obtaining virtual access to the external application via the first application as taught by Han.].
As to dependent claim 11, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein after receiving the first application information, the method further comprises: performing, by the first electronic device based on the task type, a query in the first application information to obtain second application information that matches the task type; and performing, by the first electronic device, a simulation based on the second application information to obtain the second application [e.g. after receiving the first application information, a query performed in the first application information based on the task type by the first electronic device to obtain second application information that matches the task type (Han: figs. 7B & 11; ¶¶ 10 & 116); and “a simulation” is also performed by the first electronic device based on the second application information to obtain the second application (Han: figs. 5B, 7B, 9A-9B, & 11; ¶¶ 09-10, 105-110, 116-121, & 180). It is noted that the metes and bounds of the “a simulation” limitation as currently recited are significantly vague/broad, and cover a wide range of possibilities, including obtaining virtual access to the external application via the first application as taught by Han.].
As to dependent claim 12, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein after displaying the first menu, the method further comprises sending, by the first electronic device, to the second electronic device, based on the task type, a query request to obtain application information of the second application [e.g. after displaying the first menu, a query request is sent by the first electronic device to the second electronic device based on the task type to obtain application information of the second application (Han: figs. 7B & 11; ¶¶ 10, 116, & 186)].
As to independent claims 13 and 25, Han shows a method and a concomitant first electronic device [¶¶ 02 & 06], comprising:
establishing a multi-screen collaboration connection with a second electronic device [e.g. establishing a multi-screen collaboration connection to a second electronic device of the communication system (¶¶ 06 & 122)];
displaying a first interface of a first application installed on the first electronic device, wherein the first interface comprises a first option [e.g. displaying a first interface of a first application installed on the first electronic device, wherein the first interface comprises a first/“Sharing” option (fig. 1A)];
receiving a first operation performed by a user on the first option [e.g. receiving a first operation performed by a user on the first/“Sharing” option (fig. 1A; ¶ 67)];
displaying, in response to the first operation, a first menu comprising a first icon of a second application installed on the second electronic device [e.g. displaying a first menu comprising a first icon of a second application installed on the second electronic device (figs. 5B & 9A-9B; ¶¶ 09 & 116-121)];
receiving a second operation performed by the user on the first icon [e.g. selecting one of the application icons (figs. 5B & 9A-9B; ¶¶ 09 & 116-121)];
determining, in response to the second operation, the second application; sending, to the second electronic device, an application sharing request instructing the second electronic device to enable the second application [e.g. determining and requesting access to the selected application after it was selected as the sharing destination (figs. 5B & 9A-9B; ¶¶ 09 & 116-121)];
displaying a second interface {…} [Han shows many ways of displaying a second interface that is related to the second electronic device/application (Han: figs. 5D, 7B & 11; ¶¶ 09 & 11-12)]
As indicated above, Han shows many “second interface” alternatives. In lieu of simply pointing to the considerable breadth of the terms “a window of the second electronic device” and/or “a third interface of the second application” as currently recited and/or the spectrum of possible mappings their respective broadest reasonable interpretations would cover, it is potentially conceded that Han does not appear to explicitly recite a “a second interface comprising a window of the second electronic device, wherein the window comprises a third interface of the second application running on the second electronic device” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Yi shows:
displaying a second interface comprising a window of the second electronic device [e.g. displaying, by a first large-screen device, a virtual screen 701 (figs. 7-8B, 10A, 11A-12B, &14A-14E; ¶¶ 192-195 & 237) and/or window frames associated with a multi-window button 7016 (figs. 11A-13) of a different electronic device (fig. 1)],
wherein the window comprises a third interface of the second application running on the second electronic device [e.g. the window comprises a third interface of the second application (figs. 11A-13; ¶¶ 276 & 284)],
and wherein the window occupies only a part of an area of the display [The virtual screen 701 (Yi: figs. 7-8B, 10A, 11A-12B, &14A-14E; ¶¶ 192-195 & 237) and/or window frames associated with a multi-window button 7016 (Yi: figs. 11A-13) occupy only a part of an area of the display.]; and
after displaying the second interface comprising the window: receiving a third operation performed by the user on a second option displayed in the second interface; and minimizing, in response to the third operation, the window of the second electronic device [“The minimization control 7021 may be configured to minimize the virtual screen 701 of the electronic device. The large-screen device minimizes the virtual screen 701 of the electronic device in response to a click or touch operation on the minimization control 7021. A minimized virtual screen 701 may be, for example, shown in FIG. 10A, and only an indicator 7012 indicating that a virtual screen of an electronic device is projected onto a large-screen device, a search button 7013, a quick launch bar 7014, a desktop activity button 7015, and a multi-window button 7016 are retained. Alternatively, the minimized virtual screen 701 may be, for example, as shown in FIG. 10B, and only a desktop activity button 7015 is retained.” (Yi: ¶ 262)
“In FIG. 11A, FIG. 11B, and FIG. 11C, a name bar of each application on the interface may include a hidden button 1102 and a minimization button 1101. The hidden button 1102 may be configured to hide the interface of the application, and the minimization button 1101 may be configured to minimize the interface of the application and display the interface at a preset location, for example, a lower right corner. {…}” (¶ 282) | See also Yi: ¶¶ 259, 284, & 287.].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Han and Yi before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Yi’s window displaying techniques into Han. The rationale for doing so would have been that Han had already explicitly indicated a desire of obtaining an end result wherein “the user may view, by using the first electronic device, an application that is in another electronic device and related to the target data without opening the another electronic device” (Han: ¶ 09) “and the first application in the second electronic device can be invoked to send the target data to the first account. In this way, a quantity of times of operations performed by the user can be reduced, and efficiency of processing the foregoing target data can be improved.” (Han: ¶ 12). Moreover, Yi confirms that incorporating its techniques into Han “helps a user operate applications on the electronic device and the large-screen device at the same time, and improves user experience” (Yi: ¶ 243). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Han and Yi (hereinafter, the “Han-Yi” combination) in order to obtain the invention as recited in claims 13 and 25.
As to dependent claims 18 and 27, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein a third application is installed on the first electronic device, and wherein the first menu further comprises a second icon of the third application [e.g. a third application is installed on the first electronic device and the first menu further comprises a second icon of the third application (Han: figs. 5B & 9A; ¶¶ 120-121 & 146-147)].
As to dependent claims 19 and 28, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein the first menu further comprises a first identifier, and wherein the first identifier indicates that the second application is installed on the second electronic device [e.g. the first menu further comprises a first identifier, and the first identifier indicates that the second application is installed on the second electronic device (Han: figs. 5B & 9A; ¶¶ 120-121 & 146-147)].
As to dependent claims 20 and 29, Han-Yi further shows:
determining the second application in the first menu based on a task type corresponding to the first option [e.g. the second application in the first menu is determined based on a task type corresponding to the first option (Han: ¶¶ 10 & 116)].
As to dependent claims 21 and 30, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein before receiving the first operation, the method further comprises receiving, from the second electronic device, first application information comprising package information of the second application [e.g. before receiving the first operation, first application information comprising package information of the second application is received by the first electronic device from the second electronic device (Han: ¶¶ 105-106, 165, & 180)].
As to dependent claim 22, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein after receiving the first application information, the method further comprises performing, based on the first application information, a simulation to obtain the second application [e.g. after receiving the first application information, a “simulation” to obtain the second application is performed based on the first application information (Han: figs. 5B & 9A-9B; ¶¶ 09, 105-110, 116-121, & 180). It is noted that the metes and bounds of the “a simulation” limitation as currently recited are significantly vague/broad, and cover a wide range of possibilities, including obtaining virtual access to the external application via the first application as taught by Han.].
As to dependent claim 23, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein after receiving the first application information, the method further comprises: performing, based on the task type, a query in the first application information to obtain second application information that matches the task type; and performing, based on the second application information, a simulation to obtain the second application [e.g. after receiving the first application information, a query performed in the first application information based on the task type by the first electronic device to obtain second application information that matches the task type (Han: figs. 7B & 11; ¶¶ 10 & 116); and “a simulation” is also performed by the first electronic device based on the second application information to obtain the second application (Han: figs. 5B, 7B, 9A-9B, & 11; ¶¶ 09-10, 105-110, 116-121, & 180). It is noted that the metes and bounds of the “a simulation” limitation as currently recited are significantly vague/broad, and cover a wide range of possibilities, including obtaining virtual access to the external application via the first application as taught by Han.].
As to dependent claim 24, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein after displaying the first menu, the method further comprises sending, to the second electronic device, based on the task type, a query request to obtain application information of the second application [e.g. after displaying the first menu, a query request is sent by the first electronic device to the second electronic device based on the task type to obtain application information of the second application (Han: figs. 7B & 11; ¶¶ 10, 116, & 186)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“{…} Han does not teach the window limitations now recited in the amended independent claims. Han is directed to cross-device application invocation but lacks any teaching of displaying windows with the claimed characteristics. Han teaches cross- device application invocation where a first device (mobile phone 200) can invoke applications on a second device ("another electronic device") for processing data. Specifically, Han teaches that "the application list includes applications that are related to the target data in the one or more electronic devices and that are not installed in the mobile phone 200" (paragraph 0118), and "the mobile phone 200 may invoke an application, which is in another electronic device, to process the target data" (paragraph 0121). However, Han does not teach or suggest displaying a window showing an interface of the invoked application. Han's emphasis is on remote processing without requiring multi-device interaction. Han is explicit in each in that "the user can invoke the first application in the second electronic device to process the target data without a need of separately performing a plurality of operations on the first electronic device and the second electronic device" (paragraph 0129). In contrast to displaying a window showing the application's interface as required by the amended claims, Han teaches background processing without interface display. It follows that Han also fails to teach or suggest minimizing a window as claimed because Han lacks any window display or window management teaching in the context of application invocation across different devices.”
In response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 U.S.P.Q. 871 (C.C.P.A. 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 U.S.P.Q. 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In other words, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive because the limitations in question were mapped to the secondary (Yi) reference.
“The Office Action correctly concedes that Han fails to disclose a second interface comprising a window of the second electronic device, wherein the window comprises a third interface of the second application. (Office Action, pages 5, 11). The rejections rely on Yi for allegedly teaching this limitation. (Office Action, pages 5-7, 11-13). Yi is directed to reducing screen space occupied by projected windows when an electronic device projects its desktop to a large-screen device. Specifically, [sic] Yi invention concerns [sic] displaying "any one of a plurality of desktops of the electronic device" rather than all desktops, to avoid occupying excessive display area. Yi discloses a virtual screen 701 showing a single desktop with application icons projected from a mobile device to a computer screen. The minimization features in Yi (paragraphs 0262, 0282, 0284, 0287) relate to minimizing this virtual screen or individual application windows within the projected virtual screen itself. For example, paragraph 0262 teaches: "The minimization control 7021 may be configured to minimize the virtual screen 701 of the electronic device." Yi operates in a fundamentally different context than what the present claims require. Yi teaches minimization controls that operate on a virtual screen projection from one device displayed on another device. These controls exist within that projected virtual screen, not as separate interface elements on the receiving device as required by the present claims. The figures in Yi show minimization controls (7021, 1101, and 1102, FIGS. 7 and 11) as part of the virtual screen 701 interface itself. Yi at best shows an icon of a second remote device, not a window of the second electronic device. Yi's virtual screen is a projection/mirroring of the electronic device's desktop, not a discrete "window" of a second device displayed within a first device's native interface. The virtual screen 701 displays the electronic device's desktop content, including application icons and interfaces running on that device. In contrast, the present claims require the first electronic device to display a second interface that includes a window of the second electronic device, with controls operated from the first device affecting the second device's window. Yi teaches the opposite, a large-screen device (equivalent to the second device) displays a virtual screen from an electronic device (equivalent to the first device). The control flow and device roles are reversed. Yi's minimization functionality (e.g. paragraphs 0262, 0282) operates within the virtual screen environment for managing projected content, not for minimizing a window of a second device from within a new interface on a first device. The minimization in Yi focuses on managing the projected virtual screen itself or applications within it, not controlling a discrete window representing another device's interface. It is respectfully submitted that the Office Action's reliance on Yi's "window displaying techniques" is based on a mischaracterization of Yi's disclosure, which concerns efficient desktop projection, not cross-device window management as required by the amended claims.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. As to Applicant’s allegation that Yi does not teach “separate interface elements on the receiving device,” the Office disagrees on at least two counts. First, Yi’s minimization controls are displayed/provided by the receiving device (the host device portraying content from the external device). Secondly, the claims do not require “separate interface elements on the receiving device” as alleged. Instead, the claims merely recite carrying out an operation on “a second option displayed in the second interface” that ultimately results in minimizing the window of the second electronic device. In fact, the Office submits that Applicant’s own characterization that “Yi teaches minimization controls that operate on a virtual screen projection from one device displayed on another device” reasonably reads on the claimed “displaying a second interface comprising a window of the second electronic device” limitation because the “virtual screen” would have been reasonably interpreted by a POSITA as “a window of the second electronic device” as claimed, and its “minimization control” as the “second option” as claimed. Moreover, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s argument that “the present claims require the first electronic device to display a second interface that includes a window of the second electronic device, with controls operated from the first device affecting the second device's window. Yi teaches the opposite, a large-screen device (equivalent to the second device) displays a virtual screen from an electronic device (equivalent to the first device). The control flow and device roles are reversed.” Not only do the claims not make any distinction between device types (like desktop computers versus portable devices, meaning any type would work for each), but also Han explicitly clarifies that its device types may include “a tablet computer, a mobile phone, a desktop, a laptop, a handheld computer, a notebook computer, an ultra-mobile personal computer (ultra-mobile personal computer, UMPC), a netbook, or a device such as a cellular phone, a personal digital assistant (personal digital assistant, PDA), an augmented reality (augmented reality, AR)/virtual reality (virtual reality, VR) device, or an in-vehicle device” (Han: ¶ 75). In other words, even in Applicant’s described scenario, the roles need not be reversed because Han explicitly contemplates the possibility wherein the first device is a desktop computer and the second device is a portable device. Yi similarly is open-ended in the types of devices that its teachings cover (Yi: ¶¶ 66-67).
“The proffered combination is further flawed because Han and Yi describe systems with reversed device roles and opposite data flows. In Han: The first device (mobile phone) is the operator; the second device (computer) has the applications that are being invoked remotely. The first device sends requests to the second device. In Yi the electronic device (first device/mobile phone) sends projection data to the large-screen device (second device/computer). The large-screen device receives and displays the virtual screen. The Office Action attempts to map these references onto the claims, with device roles becoming confused. The combination requires incorporating "Yi's window displaying techniques into Han". However, Yi's "techniques" involve the receiving device (large-screen device) displaying a projection from the sending device (electronic device). In contrast, Han has the first device invoking applications on the second device, where the second device does the processing. Even in the proffered combination, there is no teaching or suggestion to display on the first device a window that represents the second device and contains a running application interface from the second device. Han shows invoking remote applications but not displaying their windows. Yi shows projecting content but in the wrong direction. The Office Action states: "One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Han and Yi before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Yi's window displaying techniques into Han." The rationale given is that Han already indicates a desire for the user to "view, by using the first electronic device, an application that is in another electronic device" (Han paragraph 00009) and to "reduce a quantity of times of operations performed by the user" (Han paragraph 0012). This rationale is circular because Han already achieves its stated goals through its own system of displaying application icons and invoking remote applications, the rationale doesn't explain why one would import Yi's virtual screen projection system. Yi's contribution (reducing projected desktop area) is irrelevant to Han's problem of invoking remote applications). Yi suggests that it is motivated by the problem that "under the condition that the electronic device includes two or more desktops, all desktops of the electronic device are displayed in the large-screen device after the screen is projected, so that the area occupied by the display screen of the large-screen device is large." This problem does not exist in Han. Han does not project entire desktops but displays selected application icons in a menu. There is no motivation whatsoever to adopt Yi's desktop projection management techniques because Han does not use desktop projection. The combination appears to be based on hindsight knowledge of the claimed invention rather than what the references themselves would suggest. "[I]mpermissible hindsight must be avoided and the legal conclusion must be reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the prior art." § MPEP 2142. The Office Action identifies specific limitations missing from Han, then searches for those limitations in Yi. Even assuming arguendo that the references could be combined, the combination still fails to teach or suggest all of the required limitations. The combination would at best yield: (1) Han's first device displaying application icons from the second device, and (2) Yi's large-screen device displaying a virtual screen projection. Neither reference, singly nor in combination teaches the first device displaying an actual window of the second device. Yi's minimization controls exist within the virtual screen 701 (see controls 7021, 1101, 1102 in Figures 7-13). These are not controls in a "second interface" of the first device that operate on a window of the second device, they are controls within a projected screen that minimize elements of that projection. Moreover, the claims require that "the window comprises a third interface of the second application running on the second electronic device." Neither Han nor Yi, alone or combined, clearly teaches displaying in a window an active, running interface of an application executing on the second device that is controllable from the first device.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. As to the argument that alleging that the “proffered combination is further flawed because Han and Yi describe systems with reversed device roles and opposite data flows. In Han: The first device (mobile phone) is the operator; the second device (computer) has the applications that are being invoked remotely. The first device sends requests to the second device. In Yi the electronic device (first device/mobile phone) sends projection data to the large-screen device (second device/computer). The large-screen device receives and displays the virtual screen,” the Office again respectfully reemphasizes that not only do the claims not make any distinction between device types/roles (like desktop computers versus portable devices, meaning any type would work for each), but also Han explicitly clarifies that its device types/roles may include “a tablet computer, a mobile phone, a desktop, a laptop, a handheld computer, a notebook computer, an ultra-mobile personal computer (ultra-mobile personal computer, UMPC), a netbook, or a device such as a cellular phone, a personal digital assistant (personal digital assistant, PDA), an augmented reality (augmented reality, AR)/virtual reality (virtual reality, VR) device, or an in-vehicle device” (Han: ¶ 75). In other words, even in Applicant’s described scenario, the roles need not be reversed because Han contemplates a scenario wherein the first device is a desktop computer and the second device is a portable device. Yi similarly is open-ended in the types/roles of devices that its teachings cover (Yi: ¶¶ 66-67).
Moreover, in response to applicant’s argument that there “is no motivation whatsoever to adopt Yi's desktop projection management techniques because Han does not use desktop projection,” the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Han was already explicitly concerned with sharing an application between devices, it just did not appear to focus on the aftermath of how said sharing is ultimately materialized. It would have been obvious for a POSITA to look for ways of materializing Han’s application sharing request teachings. Yi, an analogous reference that also concerned itself with inter-device communications and application sharing, taught one possible (and compelling, especially because it “improves user experience” (Yi: ¶ 243)) way of displaying a window associated with a second device that conveys application content running on said second device. Thus, it would have been obvious for a POSITA, parting from Han’s application sharing foundation, to look to Yi’s teachings in order to materialize/reduce to practice said application sharing.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the Office action took into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill before the claimed invention was filed, and did not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure.
Also, in response to applicant's argument that the “combination would at best yield: (1) Han's first device displaying application icons from the second device, and (2) Yi's large-screen device displaying a virtual screen projection, the fact that the inventor has recognized other advantages which would flow naturally from following the suggestions of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Finally, in response to Applicant’s allegation that neither “reference, singly nor in combination teaches the first device displaying an actual window of the second device,” the Office emphatically disagrees and submits that Applicant’s own characterization of a “projection” (which in actuality was mapped, based on the claimed “second interface,” to a virtual screen 701 (Yi: figs. 7-8B, 10A, 11A-12B, &14A-14E; ¶¶ 192-195 & 237) and/or window frames associated with a multi-window button 7016 (Yi: figs. 11A-13) of a different electronic device (Yi: fig. 1)) reasonably reads on the “second interface comprising a window {…}” limitation because they would very reasonably be considered to be “windows” as they are well known and established in the graphical user interface arts (see Yi: figs. 7-8B, 10A, & 11A-14E).
Therefore, the Office respectfully asserts that the cited art sufficiently teaches the limitations recited in the amended claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571) 272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 5pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO R CALDERON IV/
Examiner, Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights